What Are You Optimistic About?

vix86 writes "Last year's "World Question" from The Edge was "What is your Dangerous Idea?" So to kick off the off the new year: As an activity, as a state of mind, science is fundamentally optimistic. Science figures out how things work and thus can make them work better. Much of the news is either good news or news that can be made good, thanks to ever deepening knowledge and ever more efficient and powerful tools and techniques. Science, on its frontiers, poses more and ever better questions, ever better put. What are you optimistic about? Why? Surprise us! "

Comments

That Vista will be a huge success

[Timesprout]

Slashdot wishing it to fail just isn't enough.

Re:That Vista will be a huge success

[hyperquantization]

Slashdot wishing it to fail just isn't enough.

Why is this a flaimbait? There's no denying the bias that a large mass of Slashdotters have against Microsoft.

But, personally, I'd have to say that I'm at least hoping Vista will go somewhere. In fact, I'm quite optimistic about many aspects of Microsoft; I have faith that at least some of the company has learned its lesson from past mistakes.

Last Year's

[quanminoan]

If you missed last year's discussion here on the most dangerous idea you should read through it. There were some pretty interesting ideas...

Re:Last Year's

[arun_s]

To me, the most interesting question by far in EDGE has been the one on 'What do you believe to be true even though you can't prove it?' There were some really cool answers that year, e.g. this hilarious (but equally insightful) one from Leonard Susskind.

Re:Last Year's

[Watson Ladd]

How is that insightful? Everyone knows that probability is just a Boreal measure on the set of outcomes and you go from that.

Re:Last Year's

[Silly22]

This contribution from last year's dangerous idea question places Leonard Susskind's annual salary on the line...

Unsurprisingly

[Anonymous Coward]

about finally getting laid! YAY!

Re:Unsurprisingly

[sa1lnr]

That's fantasy, not optimism. ;)

Energy

[Scareduck]

I am optimistic on several major points regarding energy over the long term:

1. That mankind will wean itself of fossil fuels. This means massive increases in renewables, energy transport, and improved nuclear fission reactors/processes (breeder reactors and thorium fuel cycles, and ultimately, fusion).
2. Part of this process will be radical improvements in efficiency. Examples include stored thermal heat exchanges (underground water tanks for summer cooling and winter heating), coal gasification instead of conventional coal-fired power plants, hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and so forth.
3. Industrial civilization with continue and even thrive as a result, even unto the "developing world" countries of India and China.
4. As a result, anthropogenic climate forcing will cease to be an issue.

Yes, I know, I'm off my meds this week.

Re:Energy

[Oligonicella]

Very good. One and two are already underway. Three is only wished against by the Luddites who don't correctly remember the crap-fest that was life before technology. Four will actually come about as we learn more about climate and the factors influencing it, thereby realizing we weren't all that big an influence to begin with.

Re:Energy

[Anonymous Coward]

In many ways the science is already done for renewable energy and we're basically
at the price point where renewable energy is competative. So, I'm optimistic that
we'll see rapid growth in this sector. There is a technological limit in that sporadic
renewable sources of energy can't provide more than about 20% of electicity use
without some kind of effectively huge capacitor. I'm hopeful that a cheap and efficient
battery technology that can hold tens of days of the nations electrical needs can
be found or demonstrated in 2007. This would remove the roadblock for solar and wind
becoming our primary power source for electricity. Additional battery technology that
is also light weight would be very helpful in the transportation sector.

On the new science side of things, I think that looking at the angular isotopy of dark
energy will be recognized as the clearest way forward in understanding the nature of dark energy.

Happy New Year!

Re:Energy

[RicktheBrick]

Life is like a video game. When one kills off the most powerful opponent the game becomes boring since one is usually invincible. When mankind solves most of it problems will life than become boring to most of it people? This is why I do not believe that heaven would be such a great place. If everything is perfect what is the purpose of life? We must have a society where everyone can contribute to its success. I guess what I am saying is that solving problems will lead to a bigger problem. That is what will society do with its people to ensure that their lives are not totally boring. Otherwise they will find a way which will usually include some kind of violence toward other members.

Re:Energy

[bagsc]

I am optimistic that the writing is on the wall, and politicians will finally start funding these initiatives like the country depends on it. I'm thinking something like the Peace Corps that gives out scholarships to tens of thousands of engineers and scientists in exchange for a few years working on the country's biggest energy and ecological problems. "Lose" a few billion dollars to educate, train and motivate a giant part of America - that's my kind of trade-off.

Re:Energy

[yusing]

Considering how much the expressions of "industrial" have changed in the past century ... along with the idea that "more stuff" will lead to a better world ... I predict that the meaning of "industrial" will again change greatly. It's not the size of the fix, it's the quality of the fix.

More still: it's not a fix that we need at all; but simply to appreciate better what already exists. In that sense, Pescovitz' comments on "wunderkammmer" are brilliant.

Re:Energy

[yusing]

"When mankind solves most of it problems..."

Until it solves the inner problems, solving the outer problems will continue to be like a clothes change: looks good, still needs a bath.

Re:Energy

[yusing]

I think fusion is going to be in the next century...."

Take a look up tomorrow morning: there's fusion staring back at you.

The problem is not a shortage of energy, but that we've been born into an energy pig culture ... and encouraged to remain that way (as with most problems in human history) by those who profit from our ignoring of alternatives. We've lived in a spendthrift era when energy was used with wanton stupidity and extreme inefficiency. Those who encourage massive, filthy centralization schemes want us to remain stupid and dependent.

Until a change of minds and hearts, there will be no solutions, only more delaying tactics. Which we may, or not, survive.

The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[fishyfool]

Just thrills me to death. It makes me optimistic for the future of the United States and we the people.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Dachannien]

I'm just hoping that the tax-and-spend liberals aren't our only alternative.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Loco Moped]

Put in another way: the one-party monopoly is over,

I'm sorry, but how is it possible that someone smart enough to post on /. can't see that there IS ONLY ONE PARTY? It's been that way for years. It's a GAME, folks - you know, like football, where the teams pretend to hate each other, then go out for beers together after the game. Which playbook they follow depends upon what color jersey they're wearing today. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME AGENDA, just different ways to reach the common goal.

And the loser is always the same (us peons, aka citizens, aka disposable interchangeable taxpayers).

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Oligonicella]

Ah, idealism. Puts the blinders on memory. Things won't be different until both the Dems and Reps are deposed by a centrist party. Roll up the sleeves? Only so they can reach further up your ass for money.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[yolto]

As opposed to the spend-and-spend "conservatives" we've had lately?

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Dachannien]

Exactly. What we need is "no-tax and no-spend" - or something moving in that direction - but then we wouldn't be able to fund all the pork, entitlements, and poorly-handled military engagements.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[SRA8]

OK, they are different on small matters like their *approach* but no different to the big picture. Democrats may achieve their means through media manipulation and public humiliation rather than evesdropping & secret killings. Democrats prefer open death via sanctions rather than Republicans/Neocon secret death squads, etc. But at the end of the day, they all sell out America to greater powers. Speaking of Iraq, President Clinton presided over the genocide of our age. From 1992 to 2000, almost 1,200,000 Iraqis were killed due to the genocidal sanctions on everything from pencils to milk. Granted, they were largely a cause of Bush I's destruction of Iraqi civilian infrastructure (water purification plants, electricity plants, etc.) But Clinton did not have the political will to save these 1.2Million lives. Either he didnt care or he was powerless to do so. Regardless, the last 16 years has been a mockery of "Never Again." Finally, lobbying -- definitely on specific issues one party or another may favor an issue. A bridge to nowhere. Aid to peanut farmers here or there. But i'm talking about the big picture of old power and money. These things never change.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Pink Tinkletini]

You need to get out more if you think the issues on which Democrats and Republicans differ are just "small matters." Tell it to victims of multiple sclerosis, or the kid in Baghdad who lost his entire family due to the war and Rumsfeld's misprosecution of it. I think you'll get punched in the face (if not by the former, hopefully the latter).

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[abonstu]

smart enough to post on /.? wtf?

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[nametaken]

I'm optimistic that people will stop assuming that Democrats, Republicans or any other particular party can solve their problems.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[SRA8]

I think you misread the comment. The differences are small. None of their actions are small matters. Every single American and Iraqi who dies is a tragedy. But you must agree that Clinton presided over 1.2Million Iraqi deaths. He could have stopped it at any point, but didnt. That includes 500,000 children. The difference between killing 1.2Million Iraqi's via sanctions or killing iraqi via an invasion and inevitable civil war are not different in my book. One is a slow death. One is a quick death. They are both death. Neither Bush nor Clinton are different in this respect -- they both either wanted or had no choice in the matter of these mass atrocities. In terms of medical research yes, they differ in their funding. Same for education. I dont state that they dont. But for issues like long term strategy, they were and are the same. They both ignored the national interest.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[khallow]

No, they're not. That's just something people say when they don't really know what's going on but don't want to sound ignorant. Go watch C-SPAN, hell watch CNN--do you think we would be in Iraq if the Democrats had won the presidency in 2000? There are hundreds of thousands of deaths that probably wouldn't have happened, including thousands of US citizens--go tell their families that the parties are the same.

But would the body count be lower in the end? The Republicans strike me as more responsive to terrorism and such things than the Democrats. My take is that the US would be beset with terrorism attacks until a Republican administration replaced them in 2004. And then pretty much what happened in 2001-2003, would happen a bit later. My take is that the two parties play different roles. The Democrats handle social issues and education as well as foreign policies that require cooperation with allied countries while the Republicans handle economic matters and military matters. A Democrat president would have been incapable in the 9/11 affair, but would have handled some other matters a little better like the Katrina Hurricane disaster.

Look at all the money spent on lobbying--why do you think companies spend so much on it if the parties are the same?

You already answered the question. If there was genuine political competition, then companies wouldn't need to spend so much. Nor would they get so much out of it.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[revolu7ion]

Stop it... your optimism is killing me

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[drsmithy]

But you must agree that Clinton presided over 1.2Million Iraqi deaths. He could have stopped it at any point, but didnt.

The bloke running Iraq could have stopped it as well, resulting in something significantly closer to a win-win scenario. Why aren't you putting the blame where it belongs ? Why are you assuming if the sactions hadn't have existed, those same Iraqis would have survived ?

The difference between killing 1.2Million Iraqi's via sanctions or killing iraqi via an invasion and inevitable civil war are not different in my book.

Then your book needs revising. There is a vast gulf of difference between people killed in a poorly planned, poorly executed, selfish, short-sighted *invasion* and people killed because their dictatorial ruler wouldn't give them food that he already had or could easily (and legally) have obtained.

I will not argue the relative uselessness of "sanctions", but to suggest they are not a vastly more humane approach than war is just ridiculous. Sanctions, at least, have the _possibility_ (however slim it might be) of reaching a solution without needless death, destruction and mind boggling amounts of wasted money. That both war and sanctions are bad alternatives, does not make them equal.

(And before you go off on some politically partisan rant, bear in mind I'm not American, so attacking me with American-centric political ad hominems is going to be a complete waste of your time.)

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[niktemadur]

Hey, it's point-counterpoint time! In a civilized manner, of course. I apologize beforehand, as this post is huge.

The Republicans strike me as more responsive to terrorism and such things than the Democrats.

It could seem that way, but zoom in closer on Afghanistan:
1. The US Army had their chance to get Osama at Tora Bora yet fumbled the ball, at the administration's behest to use afghan troops in the caves.
2. Precious resources were diverted to invade Iraq, and as a result
3. The Taliban is back again in full force.
4. Opium production is at an all-time high, under the noses of the relatively few US troops left there.

Now let's zoom in on Iraq:
1. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, which confirms suspicions of US imperialism (oil).
2. Saddam the secularist and Osama the zealot hated each other, had nothing to do with each other.
3. By using a pre-emptive attack, the United States has stirred up a hornet's nest of hatred in the region.
4. By miscalculating and/or ignoring the consequences of their actions, the US is now stuck in the middle of a civil war, by which in turn
5. Iraq has become the world's premier guerrilla-combat training ground.

As a morbid bonus, taxes are way down yet spending is way up, a recipe for disaster, but when a democratic president inherits this ticking time bomb, all blame will be put squarely on his/her shoulders. Collective amnesia, force-fed by the hysterical mass media, rules the day today and will rule the day in a few year's time.

Speaking of collective amnesia:
1. Iraq has become the new Vietnam, with mounting casualties and "collateral damage", no cleara-cut plans and no exit strategy.
2. Saddam Hussein was Reagan's baby, pumped full of weapons and money during the eighties.
3. Osama bin Laden was Reagan's baby, trained in Afghanistan by US "advisors" during the eighties.
4. It was the senior Bush who decided to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, prompting al-Quaeda's campaign against the west.
5. It's the junior Bush who created the current debacle and quagmire.

Granted, Clinton kept the status quo, but look closer, three republicans presidencies created and escalated the mess, while one democrat has inherited it and kept it relatively contained, even with his hands tied by an antagonistic and do-nothing republican congress and a blank-eyed press on a feeding frenzy (wag the dog, anyone?).
One of the gigantic problems with republicans, when it comes to foreign policy, is that they adhere to the dogma the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which always creates worse problems in the long run, yet they keep on doing it! If it was a game of chess, they'd drool when nailing an exposed rook, while exposing the queen.

By the way, Osama bin Laden is still out there. What was it that Bush said a couple of years ago, when asked about bin Laden? "To tell you the truth, I really don't spend too much time thinking about the man". And what was the Pentagon report's conclusion last year? "The bin Laden tape came out to influence the 2004 US presidential elections in Bush's favor". It seems that al-Quaeda hearts the current republican administration, whose policies play right into their hands.

Now here's the clincher: the big winner here has been Iran, who got rid of its' mortal enemy Saddam without firing a single shot. Saddam kept Iran contained, but now counts the Iraqi government as a sympathetic neighbour.

The Democrats handle social issues and education as well as foreign policies that require cooperation with allied countries while the Republicans handle economic matters and military matters.
Two words: Slobodan Milosevic. Here's a tyrant overthrown through US and UN forces with minimum casualties, and tried in The Hague, with the overwhelming applause of the world, even.

A Democrat president would have been incapable in the 9/11 affair, but would have handled some other matters a little better like the Katrina Hurricane disas

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[RealGrouchy]

[notwithstanding the accurate comment by Loco Moped...]

Hey, we got through McCarthyism. We'll hopefully get through this, too.

- RG>

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[Workaphobia]

Either you were only trying to make a point, or you have a lot more faith in the public than I ever will have. I am optimistic about technological breakthroughs and perfect mathematical systems, but not people.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[dscruggs]

> can't see that there IS ONLY ONE PARTY?

No there's not. Ask Nader voters in 2000 if they'd prefer Bush over Gore now.

Re:The defeat of the Neo-Cons

[khallow]

While Iraq is a mess, you exaggerate the problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban isn't at "full strength" and Al Qaeda is just as badly off. And while I disapprove of the post-war lack of planning and the general insincerity of the Bush administration when it comes to the things that they supposedly are concerned about (like terrorism, national security, etc), the invasion of Iraq still seems necessary to me. I think it's a big mistake to discount Iraq's nuclear ambitions and nuclear proliferation in general.

And I don't buy that Gore would have done a better job preventing 9/11. After all, he was part of the administration that had started the policy of ignoring bin Laden and Al Qaeda, focusing on white supremacist groups and other potential domestic terrorists. Instead, the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have several more years to cause trouble. And never invade Iraq? I see that as costing more lives in the long run. Recall, that Saddam Hussein might not have seen eye-to-eye with Al Qaeda, but he sponsored his own terrorist groups. Palestine and the Korea peninsula? I don't see any real change. There isn't much the US can do there without causing a lot of harm.

And as I stated, the Democrats tend to be stronger on some domestic issues. It's likely that the budget would still be in the red (9/11 was an equal opportunity effort to spend), but disaster response would be better. I don't know how well that would matter to New Orleans and Lousianna since much of the problem was due to local and state incompetence.

Finally, I think that we'd be even worse off with respect to the Constitution. Part of the issue is security. For what it's worth, a secure US is far less likely to impose restrictions on freedom than one that has a genuine enemy that can cause harm. Al Qaeda has been contained and hasn't successfully executed an attack on the US proper since 9/11. That has taken a lot of wind out of the sails of the people who would restrict freedom. Eg, Gingrich can whine about how we have too much freedom of speech or other such things, but he has no grounds as long as people are safe. My take is that a Democrat administration would not have obtained this level of security and the incoming 2004 Republican administration would be able to impose substantial restrictions on freedom to counter the terrorism threat that was left stewing by the prior administration.

if i win the lottery

[FudRucker]

i would make annual donations to important GNU/Linux projects like the Linux kernel, xorg, alsa, && etc...etc...

until that happens i will keep working my loser deadend job to keep from being homeless & starving :)

Re:if i win the lottery

[ericlondaits]

In case you do, I'd consider separating some amount as soon as you win (since it's a donation it'd be tax deductable), set some kind of fund where the money earns interests and you separate a set amount each year for Linux projects. If you initially set a target amount of time (say, 10 years) you can maximize the amount you'd be giving.

Is science that optimistic?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

The major drive of science in the last century was war. In this century it seems some of the most important science will be in trying to resolve the issues caused by our "optimistic" science of the past 100+ years. What I hope for the future is that we succeed in saving ourselves from ourselves. I'm not optimistic.

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[Oligonicella]

Right. The eradication of smallpox, polio and other little beasties; the improvements in energy; diagnosis of genetically caused problems and mapping the human genome; astrophysical, geological, chemical, and other hard scientific advancements... Well, you get the picture. Only someone with long-term memory problems (or, maybe, a political agenda) would make a statement such as "The major drive of science in the last century was war".

That we need to correct problems our ancestors didn't foresee because of lack of data? Boo-friggin-hoo. Once you set the standard of perfection, get back with your criticisms.

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[superpulpsicle]

I think you have a typo in there. The major drive of science was "money".

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Right. The eradication of smallpox, polio and other little beasties; the improvements in energy; diagnosis of genetically caused problems and mapping the human genome; astrophysical, geological, chemical, and other hard scientific advancements... Well, you get the picture. Only someone with long-term memory problems (or, maybe, a political agenda) would make a statement such as "The major drive of science in the last century was war". Well ignoring the fact that the scientific methods behind vaccination that allowed diseases, smallpox in particular, to be eradicated were developed in the 18th century, not the 20th. And also overlooking that polio in fact has not been eradicated yet, allow me to make myself clear since clearly at least one person couldn't understand my point: I can't speak for others but the things that make me optimistic are the things that will have an effect on my life and the lives of my children. While medicine may fit that bill, it is only one area of science and certainly one that has ultimately benefitted a great deal from some of the least pleasant circumstances of the 20th century. Astrophysics hasn't done much for me lately - how about you? Meanwhile the means by which I work, play, travel, communicate, and generally live my life have all been fundamentally changed by technologies and fields of research founded on the back of conflict and global mistrust. I never said all scientific progress in the 20th century is directly a result of war, I said it was the major drive. And what political agenda do you think I'm pushing here? Pro-war? Anti-war - anti-science? Anti-American? Or are you just so egotistical and self-righteous to believe that in some way this was all a jab at you, whoever you are.

That we need to correct problems our ancestors didn't foresee because of lack of data? Boo-friggin-hoo. Once you set the standard of perfection, get back with your criticisms. Criticisms? Way to fit my words to your misguided sense of outrage. Go back and read my post and tell me where I made any judgement of "our ancestors". I made a simple statement that what's been done needs fixing and somewhere in your little head you've turned it into condemnation. Spout your vitriol in your own posts if you want but don't try and bring me into it.

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[bagsc]

Motivation and political will are the driving forces. It just so happens that we don't have those unless we're being threatened.

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[AnExtropian]

The major drive of science was not money, but curiosity. The physicists today are not trying to find out the secrets of physics for money, but because it is interesting and profound. Otherwise, it is for advancement. It is, in fact, for a better life, not only for oneself, but for humanity as a whole. It is thus, not just for money, but for confort, safety, and many other good things. It is for usefulness. The computer was not for money, but for our ability to compute useful things.

Re:Is science that optimistic?

[AnExtropian]

It is optimistic in that it is the new way by which all problems can be solved, which is technology. Otherwise, science is optimistic in finally decreasing the free constants, since they are being decreased.

What I'm always optimistic about!

[Pao|o]

This year's the year I'm getting laid! I shall be no virgin anymore at the age of 27!

Re:What I'm always optimistic about!

[Loco Moped]

This year's the year I'm getting laid! I shall be no virgin anymore at the age of 27!

I wish you luck and suggest you start by not hanging around here. /. is NOT the place to get dating advice (or a date, if you have any standards at all).

I'm Optimistic the Edge will spell check in '07!

[XxtraLarGe]

From the web page:

I am pleased to present the 2007 Edge Question:

What Are Yot Optimistic About? Why?

All kidding aside, it is interesting to see that the "world's greatest minds" are optimistic, when reportedly so many other people are already down on 2007.

Stem cells to cure baldness.

[glrotate]

Its got to happen one of these days.

Re:Stem cells to cure baldness.

[Peripherus]

I predict that one year after baldness is cured, men will start shaving their heads.

Re:Stem cells to cure baldness.

[JoeCommodore]

More than likely the "Geico Caveman look" will then become all the fasion and we will be spammed to high end with adds about guys being able to have more hair in more places so we can have that 21st century caveman appearance.

well....

[rucs_hack]

That if I wax lyrical on slashdot and other sites for long enough, naked ladies who lust after Unix coders will emerge spontaneously from the interweb.

Re:well....

[foniksonik]

Then your wishes have been granted.... A Girl's Guide to Geek Guys

Space

[LordoftheLemmings]

I'm optimistic aboout the space program. With the new commercial intiatives, and some real goals for the moon and beyond, I'm hopefull that 2007 will be a good year for space.

Metting Scarlet Johanson on Slashdot...

[ClaraBow]

talking about her experiences with Linux.

Re:I'm Optimistic the Edge will spell check in '07

[Bartgroks]

yet from another Yahoo poll released an hour later americans feel great about things. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_us/op timism_ap_poll

On violent criminals

[azav]

That it is possible to unearn your citizenship through repeat violent crime.

Re:On violent criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's just dump psychology in the ocean and forget about it while we're at it, eh? I mean, it's not like if we actually applied some of that wisdom to things like crime we could, you know, rehabilitate offenders and get the benefit of positive contributions to society out of them.

Oh, wait. Damn you science, you provide answers to our questions, but we have to actually implement the solutions? And we have to restrain our primitive urges for revenge and hate to do so? Rationality hurts.

Uh, yeah...

[Otter]

As an activity, as a state of mind, science is fundamentally optimistic.

Somehow, I'm thinking the person who wrote this doesn't actually work as a scientist...

And for those of you who do -- get back in the lab! Wasn't taking a day off for Christmas enough for you? You can watch football while your gel runs.

I'm optimistic about...

[Elkboy]

The coming of robot wives and that I'll finally get to have sex!

Glowing penguins.

[Elentari]

That my boyfriend will become enthusiastic about using GNU/Linux again. Unlikely, but a girl can dream. Failing that, a situation where Linux developers create fluorescent green penguins, and Microsoft supports the Chinese in a battle to protect their IP, ultimately resulting in America requiring the entire corporation to be deported for supporting the communists. They relocate to that new island that appeared, only to discover that the Earth sucks it back down again hours later. Conspiracists declare that it was all intentional, designed to prevent the company from having to witness Vista's failure.

long term...

[hazygin]

emergent AI in our life time, if they can be bothered to create a interface.

USA politics

[mysticgoat]

I am optimistic that we will end 2007 with method(s) of electronic voting that pass critical scrutiny. I am optimistic that many of the USA elections of 2008 will be perceived as being at least as honest as the elections of the 1960s.

I am less optimistic that Diebold executives will get through 2007 without facing Federal criminal investigations.

I am very optimistic that Condoleeza Rice will continue to displace 129,000 tons of salty brine as she moves Middle East oil to the refineries of the USA (under the flag of the Bahamas and the auspices of Chevron).

Oh wait! Chevron renamed that boat: it is now called the Altair Voyager...

Re:USA politics

[Dachannien]

I am very optimistic that Condoleeza Rice will continue to displace 129,000 tons of salty brine

Does she have 6000 hulls?

Re:USA politics

[mysticgoat]

Does she have 6000 hulls?

No, as anyone can plainly see, she is double-hulled. She is also very wide, very stubborn and slow in responding to the helm, but very powerful.

Uh, we are talking about the boat, right?

Re:USA politics

[zCyl]

I am optimistic that many of the USA elections of 2008 will be perceived as being at least as honest as the elections of the 1960s.

We may even exceed the honesty of the 1960 elections if we can figure out a way around the absentee vote verification problem.

Re:I'm Optimistic the Edge will spell check in '07

[Mad Tea Party]

I forget who it was that once said: "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."

Two things

[ms1234]

1) Human intelligence
2) Slashdot editors

(sorry, had to)

bullshit

[Bobtree]

Science is a tool of impartial curiosity, not optimism.

Vacuum cleaning robots

[wonkavader]

I think late 2007 or early 2008, these things will actually get good.

Hoover or some other real vacuum cleaner company will come out with one which actually cleans well, and a damp mop clean technique version will emerge. Roomba will add native spacial intelligence on the bots it makes, meaning actual mapping of spaces.

Ok, mid 2008.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[smenor]

Really? I think they already are pretty good.

I was pretty skeptical when I got one but Roomba does an amazing job of covering space without resorting to mapping. Also, it only costs about as much as a normal upright (though you might want to get a few if you've got very much square footage).

My only real complaint is having to manually empty it and clean the filter every time it runs (if iRobot could just automate that, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to anyone).

Sure, it's not great for heavy duty cleaning, but if run through your place once with a normal vac then send Roomba out once or twice a week, it's remarkable. It also has the added benefit of forcing a bit of discipline as far as just keeping the floor tidy.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[CyclistOne]

I almost just bought a Roomba, but decided against it because it only cleans the _floor_! Better than nothing, I know, but if I still have to go around cleaning all the other surfaces in my house and office, I may as well wait for the robot that will clean those as well.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[wonkavader]

Your points are all good -- insightful even -- but look at what you're saing:

You might want several if you have more footage. (Mapping solves this. The device needs to navigate better, and not repeat the same areas over and over. With that, you'd only need one.) ...having to manually empty it and clean the filter every time it runs. (Right -- it's not a well-designed vacuum cleaner. You're spot on. That needs fixing.)

Sure, it's not great for heavy duty cleaning (Right... Why accept a need for a manual step? It should be a better vacuum.) ...has the added benefit of forcing a bit of discipline as far as just keeping the floor tidy. (Why? It's your house. The device should know what it has cleaned and what it hasn't and work on areas it can get to when it can get to them. It should tell what's not available because of mats, socks, etc, and navigate around, then later come back to those, when the floor clears.)

Right now the roomba is a novelty item. If the price doubled to that of a good upright (as you point out), the roomba could eliminate vacuuming by hand. Period. It should do that. To accept this silly toyness and apologize for it is to toss away a massive market. In a few years, all non-robotic vaccum cleans could be viewed as an absurd anacronism, like typewriters.

But they need to address all these issues you just apologized for.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[smenor]

You might want several if you have more footage. Mapping solves this. The device needs to navigate better, and not repeat the same areas over and over. With that, you'd only need one.)

Mapping wouldn't solve that issue at all. It's more about battery life, stairs and other obstacles. Covering the same areas a few times isn't a bug, it's a feature - I don't know how you vacuum but when I'm using an upright, I also go over the same area more than once.

Also, mapping isn't a trivial problem. I've done a little bit of work with wheeled robots myself and unless you have a good way of finding fixed reference points, you need to do some sophisticated and tricky stuff to compensate for sensor drift. It's not insoluble, but it'd take a lot more development than the current form.

it's not great for heavy duty cleaning (Right... Why accept a need for a manual step? It should be a better vacuum.) Batteries just aren't there. To make it a heavy duty vac, you'd either need a very long extension cord or to break the cleaning up into periods lasting only a minute or two.

Why? It's your house. The device should know what it has cleaned and what it hasn't and work on areas it can get to when it can get to them. It should tell what's not available because of mats, socks, etc, and navigate around, then later come back to those, when the floor clears.)

It can do that already - for the most part. It will eat your socks and get stuck, but performs well around shoes, chairs, boxes, and most other obstacles.

Also, it is your house - that's the nice thing about it. With Roomba, I have a compelling reason to keep things marginally tidy and not to let entropy take hold. I'm not a neat person by nature but I still appreciate not having a bunch of crap on my floors.

If the price doubled to that of a good upright (as you point out), the roomba could eliminate vacuuming by hand. Period.

Not even close. This monstrosity gives you most of the things you think you want (subject to the limitations of today's technology). It's inelegant, expensive, complicated, and does an amazingly bad job. Despite all of its extra sensors, power, and mapping, it has almost all of the limitations of Roomba - at 5x the price.

Based on what you said, what you really want is a general purpose bipedal servant robot. I'd like one myself. It sounds like Bill Gates may be able to help us out with that in a few years (well... maybe quite a few years).

In the meantime, I'm happy with a clever, relatively cheap 90% solution.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[wonkavader]

"Not even close. This monstrosity gives you most of the things you think you want (subject to the limitations of today's technology). It's inelegant, expensive, complicated, and does an amazingly bad job. Despite all of its extra sensors, power, and mapping, it has almost all of the limitations of Roomba - at 5x the price."

Well crap, because I followed your link and Yeah, that's the puppy. That does most of what's needed. I think the choice of battery instead of capaciters is a problem (since it can go back and recharge and resume, low wh/kg, many cycle seems like a fine situation) but the caps won't be viable for a while, anyhow, and will be expensive. But this really looks like all the things needed.

But you say it does a crappy job of vacuuming. Worse than the roomba?

Is it really a vac? The rooma's more of a duster/brush system. Is this thing a vacuum cleaner? Amazon reviews are either one star or five. Not too helpful.

I'm aiming for buying something at the beginning of next year. Sounds like things are moving in the right direction. 5x the price of a roomba would be fine, since (if it works well) it gets me out of hours of work every week.

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[smenor]

But you say it does a crappy job of vacuuming. Worse than the roomba?

Well... it's definitely a lot louder and sounds more like a regular vacuum. It also moves slower, so that might make you think it's doing a better job.

I've never seen one run on a very dirty floor, so I can't really give you a fair comparison (if you do end up getting one, I'd appreciate it if you let me know).

Although it does a bit of mapping and has ultrasound sensors, it uses a similar search pattern as Roomba. It's also not going to get you much more than a room (so if you want your whole house cleaned, you'll probably still need more than one, or you'll need to shuttle it around manually).

Also, not everything shows up well on the ultrasound. If you've got shoes on the floor with a lace sticking out, both Roomba and Trilobite will both do a good job of finding the lace and getting stuck on it. Ditto socks / etc.

My Roomba doesn't have a problem picking up kibbles of dog food, rice, or stuffing from dog toys. That stuff fills the bin quickly and drains the battery, but it still works.

If you haven't tried one, I'd strongly recommend getting one with a return policy and letting it take care of a room or two for you. Run it once every few days - maybe even once a day for the first week, and I guarantee your floors will be cleaner that with regular use of an upright. If you like it, you can get 5 of them for the price of one Trilobite.

If you must try the Trilobite, I urge you to get a money back guarantee - I think you're likely to be disappointed. Let me know how it works out for you though (if you still remember this by the time you get one).

Re:Vacuum cleaning robots

[wonkavader]

Thanks for the pointer to the Trilobite. I will remember this and drop you a line when/if I get one. My time frame for this will be beginning of next year -- they're in version 2, and I expect both bug fixes and prices to go down. If there's rumor of a version 3, I'll stall.

Your money back advice is excellent.

My wife is Korean and she insists on vacuuming every other day or so in a house where we have no dog or cat and leave our shoes at the door. On one hand, it's nice to know you can ALWAYS eat off the floor (she mops a couple of times a week, too.) but on the other hand, I'd like to avoid my part of it, and want the lost hours of my wife back. (Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't heard of his stuff coming from Korea, where so many hours are spent every week doing this.) Anyhow the real key for success on this is it removing a miniscule amount of dust and grit, and not missing any part of the floor, such that you never feel anything but smooth, clean floor with your bare feet.

BTW: I can recommend the best vac I've ever used (bought it at her insistence and it was a wise move) -- the upper-end Bosch cannister. The thing sucks like crazy and is very, VERY quiet, so you can vacuum at 3am.

Actually, nothing

[Opportunist]

With more and more technology abused to cut into our civil liberties and taking away more and more of our freedom, I feel compelled to ask with every new technology that comes around "And how are they gonna abuse it this time?"

I certainly won't go as far as saying that technology itself is evil. Far from it. But today, it seems new technology serves only one purpose, to keep those in power where they are. New entertainment media more often than not offer more DRM than actual value. The same holds true for new operation systems.

I'm actually not looking forward to anything, I have seen that "new" is currently the opposite of "better".

Free Software Crossing Boundaries

[jeremiahbell]

I am optimistic about free(libre) software crossing every state line and bringing people from the whole world together. There are many large factors merging cultures, but trade, as they argue, may unite us more than anything. Whether or not this is true, the exchange of ideas and knowledge is definitely good for all cultures and uniting us into one. And Libre Software does exactly this.

The human race starts to decline

[Flying pig]

Yes, that's right. And no, I am being serious. Forget all this garbage about colonising other planets. Stephen Hawking's views on the subject don't matter - he is a physicist, not a biologist or an ecologist or an engineer, and has no idea of the impracticalities.

Our species is turning into a major problem for itself. It is subject to all kinds of ecological problems caused by population pressure exacerbated by the growing food and energy footprints of part of the world. What we actually need is to start to decline in numbers as a species, and fast.

We, as a species, will lose nothing by it. As Stephen Gould has pointed out, human beings of 30 000 years ago (when the population was tiny) were just as intelligent as those of today, they just lacked the means of recording and developing information that allow cultural development. If our population could somehow be knocked back to, say, a hundred million tomorrow, the survivors would be all the better for it.

Global warming would not be an issue; the population could relocate to environmentally benign areas without displacing others. No Middle East problem; there would be enough land for all in Palestine (you can view the entire Middle East conflict as ultimately being a war for land and hydrology.)

Of course, if I was one of the human beings who died for this to happen, I would not be very happy about it, at least at the time.

So this is my strange, twisted ground for optimism; we look ever closer to a plague or other factors which will reduce our population, and paradoxically this will best ensure the long term survival of human beings as a species - assuming this to be a good thing.

Note for Creationists - I know you don't believe that there were human beings 30 000 years ago, and personally I don't give a shit what you think.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[bagsc]

Human beings have always found incentives to clean up their act at some point. Our history has already seen most of the world discard once common norms: murder, human sacrifice, slavery and serfdom, factories from "The Jungle," genocide, child prostitution, etc.

We've already killed off most of the large animals, deforested most of the planet, and yet somehow, we're thriving. If the world is warming, we'll find solutions. Cheap electronic Hebrew-Arabic translators and desalination might stop the Palestinian conflict.

We invent our way out of problems, we don't give up and ask for mass euthanasia. That would be regressing to one of those discarded norms.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[Mishtara2001]

Right, YOu have some wierd ideas about the meaning of the word: "Optimism".

Re:The human race starts to decline

[khallow]

And what keeps the population down? Periodic pointless diebacks each time the population gets too big. Under such circumstances, the fast breeders will triumph since their progeny will be more numerous and hence, more will survive.

We need a plan B here.

My take is that global population will decline for a period of time, perhaps 50-100 years starting sometime after 2050. A decent window of opportunity for a sane population management policy.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[Lord Ender]

So you read the Asimov novel where an entire planet was populated by a small number of people, each with a huge plantation and an army of robots to work it? That planet sucked.

Higher population drives technology. Technology empowers humanity as a whole. That's a good thing.

Also, your idea is not going to happen. Evolution states that every gene does whatever it can to make more copies of itself. Your idea goes against the fundamental principles of LIFE. You lose. Game over.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[captn ecks]

An increase of general wealth in any society retards the growth of the population of the next generation. A self limiting property if prosperity can be spread and sustained. It's a big universe people. We can do this. http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submi ssionId=50540

Re:The human race starts to decline

[niktemadur]

So you read the Asimov novel where an entire planet was populated by a small number of people, each with a huge plantation and an army of robots to work it? That planet sucked.

That planet was Solaria and the novel was "The Naked Sun", the second Elijah Bailey / R Daneel Olivaw detective story. The premise in quite intriguing. A man is found murdered in his plantation.
It couldn't have been a human, since there is no contact between people, as the population is reproduced in vitro and every person is raised alone with his "army of robots", so the very thought of human contact is found repulsive in this culture, let alone violent contact. Out of the question.
Then again, it couldn't have been a robot, as they are bound by the Three Laws Of Robotics. Nuff' said on the matter.
So who did it?

Check it out, it's a good read.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[Breakfast Pants]

Hey Malthus, you were debunked years ago.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[Kattspya]

This comment need to be modded up.

If you look at the developed nations you will se that the population is barely increasing or even stagnating. Population growth is not a problem as long as we can bring the technological blessings to the third world.

Re:The human race starts to decline

[AnExtropian]

Global Warming and the Middle East would not be an issue, but these would: Hypothermia Heat stroke Disease Hunger and Famine Lack of Water Subsistence Farming, which does much harm to the environment A greater inability to cope and help others in natural disasters Tribal and Resource Wars, and Mass Murders Violence, which shall be very big in the anarchy of small tribes due to lack of police Infant Mortality Superstitition Very short life spans A reduction of Human Population and a return to anarchy will merely bring these problems back. Actually, the environment changed frequently, and tribes displaced each other frequently when they migrated due to the environment changes. Tribes did not want to share land; rather they took all of it.

Environment Recovering

[codefungus]

I'm optimistic about the environment. I think humans will drive it to a point of mass devastation that will take out a huge portion of life on Earth. I think it's kind of one of those things that keeps things in balance. If something is damaging the environment too much, it will take drastic actions as a self-defence mechanism. Almost like a fever. Once that happens, I think some life will persevere and it wont be humans (or most mammels and fish). I'm guessing some bacteria will make it. And then the stage will be set for future evolution. Aren't we almost at 26 Million years?

Cheers.

A Choice

[Gamefreak99]

I would like either:

1) DRM to be ruled illegal
2) The RIAA and MPAA to explode

I'll take either, both would be icing :)

OK...

[sracer9]

Since nobody's said it yet.... Locking.

Bigelow

[benhocking]

Of the commercial enterprises, Bigelow has me the most optimistic. They launched Genesis I in 2006, and are scheduled to launch Genesis II in "early 2007".

The Computer Industry

[JoeCommodore]

A couple years ago I was getting pretty fed up by the entropy of the computer industry. Then I discovered GNU/Linux and the other people who just want to get things done and right.

Truly a breath of fresh air, instead of so much corprate marketing BS. The PR/marketing bull is still there, but now there is a bar of quality and responsibility to measure against - instead who can can blow the most hot air or try to "lock-in" the most marketshare.

Regardless of whether GNU/Linux, FOSS reaches the common person, all of you have already done a lot to put more optimism in the technology sector by offering compelling competition to those who thought they could put out just any crap and get away with it. As well as opening up the field to those who may have the desire but not the cash or situation for licensing quality development tools or accessing the knowledge to persue thier own dreams.

You all deserve a standing round of applause! I love you guys! (um... in a strictly heterosexual way, that is.)

Anthropogenic Global Warming

[benhocking]

I'm optimistic that in 2007, the majority of AGW skeptics will finally be convinced that the problem is real. (Or at least convinced to a reasonable level of certainty.) In 2006, we saw Bill O'Reilly accept it as reality, as well as the Bush Administration (although they had tacitly accepted it as reality as early as 2001, their support of the science behind AGW was strengthened in '06). Even ExxonMobil has begun changing their tune.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards fixing the problem. Luckily, several scientists/engineers have already moved past that first step, but it's nice to see many of the skeptics finally coming around.

Additionally, I'm also seconding the GP post, although clearly all of that won't happen in '07 (nor did the GP post claim otherwise).

Re:Anthropogenic Global Warming

[yusing]

That's why many visionaries simply keep their mouths shut while surrounded by rednecks. Bucky Fuller finally found an audience. "Pearls before swine," Bendreth.

Resistance is non-existent

[Carson Napier]

Hello Superconductivity!!
It's the easiest way to a more efficient use of energy. So many things in our lives depend on electricity (understatement indended) that it only makes sense to bring this tech to it's fruition.

I really hope to see superconductivity come into our daily lives soon.

Re:all kidding aside, this is a good point

[Elkboy]

Good point. I realized I forgot the ladies after I posted. So let's not forget the robot husbands.

American voters will become as mad as hell

[BrentRJones]

American voters will become as mad as hell and stop taking it from the elected but unrepresentative lawmakers and executives in Washington by changing the constitution.

The poor and declining middle class will redistribute the excessive wealth of the wealthy.

Our country will stop the import of foreign oil by switching to alcohol for all internal combustion engines.

Our foreign police will become "Leave us alone and we will leave you alone." All US troops will come home, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, and Korea.

The Earth

[mabu]

I'm optimistic the Earth will recover from the damage mankind has done to it. Though I'm not as optimistic about whether mankind can recover.

Don't anthropomorphize Science.

[The Living Fractal]

Science is not optimistic. Maybe some scientists are, but Science itself is not. It is simply a methodology. You can be optimistic that the methodology works, but that does NOT make Science optimistic.

Science doesn't know anything. It doesn't feel anything. It doesn't predict anything. It is only a method. I dislike it when people attribute human emotions to it.

TLF

Vista and Office 2007, baby!

[LibertineR]

I wont even go into the relative merits/weaknesses of these products. The fact is that enough of my clients are going to want them installed and require training on them, means its going to be a very good year for me.

The Ojay's said it best: "Money, money, money, money,..............MONAY!"

optimistic about oil prices

[wallet55]

I am optimistic about oil prices: that is to say,I believe they will stay high (above 50$ a barrel). Because of this, serious attention will be paid to conservation and the development of alternative energy sources, and most importantly, alternatives to the internal combustion automobile. I believe this to be the case because past oil shocks were largely driven by political issues (boycotts) or intentional manipulation by oil producers. The current high prices are driven by booming economies in China, India and other countries that are creating demand increases faster than supply increases can handle. In other words, it is the first distant echo of that assumed to be horizon event, the end of the oil supply.

More Breasteses....

[zombiedog]

I'm optimistic that breasts will more often be an option in /. polls.

What I am optomistic about ?

[dclly]

I have Heart Failure. I was a perfectly healthy 53 year old male with an unmedicated cholesterol of 154 in 2002. They say a virus attacked my heart in 2003 - 2004. I flat-lined on the table. Now I am kept alive by a fancy device called a Bi-Ventricular Pacemaker with and ICD. I also take what they call a heart failure cocktail of 5 prescription drugs a day. I am optimistic about the research in the field. Technology is my friend. Technology keeps me alive. I am particularly following stem cell research for actually rebuilding the heart muscle. I am grateful to be alive in this age and optimistic that some smart researcher will save my life. By the way, I am the CEO of a worldwide standards internet XML organization, so technology is my life.

Optimistic? No.

[CyclistOne]

What am I optimistic about?

Zero human population growth is going to happen.

What I'm not optimistic about are the prospects of its happening soon enough or in ways that are not extremely painful for all of us.

My pessimism on this score arises from consideration of the following issues:

1) World overpopulation and its current growth rate
2) Climate change
3) Imminence of peak oil and peak natural gas (or to state it another way, the end of cheap energy supplies)
4) Global economic structural imbalances
5) Political institutions unable to respond rationally to the above

Kurt Vonnegut at one point made a remark to the effect that homo sapiens is a maladaptive species.

The way I would re-state this is that homo sapiens is very clever, and has created wonderful things, but we are not clever enough to avoid doing what all other species do: multiply to the point where they overload the sustainable carrying capacity of where they live (for humans it's planet earth).

We humans have not been clever enough to avoid creating the conditions of our own self-destruction. Cf. OVERSHOOT: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, by William R. Catton, Jr. (1980) Also worth watching is http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461/, a lecture by retired physicist Albert Bartlett on Arithmetic, Population, and Energy, in which he states that the biggest failure of the human race is its inability to understand the exponential function.

I am optimistic about the really long-term prospects for planet earth, since it's been through lots of cycles of life and death over billions of years, but I think the time-frame implied in the question is somewhat shorter than this.

Optimistic

[phaggood]

I am optimistic that once robots have supplanted the American manufacturing age, the Japanese one, our current Chinese phase and the one or two (South America, Horn of Africa) following, humans will still find productive ways to occupy their 60-100 years on this planet.

What am I optimistic about?

[Gothmolly]

Nothing.

I am optimistic about...

[niktemadur]

I want to post before I go to edge.org and read the article.

1. The ever increasing number of people who are converting to the latest generation solar energy to heat their homes. The trendsetter in the United States is California, where these homes are not only self sufficient, but feed their excess production of electricity to the grid, thereby receiving a check from the energy companies. As more people convert, three things will go down: equipment costs, energy costs and environmental impact.

2. People like Richard Dawkins fighting to stem the tide of fundamentalism, finding that everywhere they go, there are many who were previously cowed into silence and are now ready to stand and speak up, even in the so-called bible belt.

3. The clear and shining example, or should I say beacon, set by a country like Ireland, who turned their country around in ten years and made it the most prosperous nation in Europe, a process that included implementing free education at all levels to its' citizens.

4. The swift kick in the pants to the complacent and increasingly irrelevant United States mass media, supplied by the new independent journalism of the blogosphere. The media should be about keeping transparency going, and now they are under a scrutiny they have only been used to applying and not receiving.

And finally:

5. The ever increasing cross-disciplinary dialogue in science, as exemplified by the fruits of NASA's Origins program, which is helping to create a coherent map of knowledge while not getting in the way of specialization in research.

Re:I am optimistic about...

[tehcyder]

The clear and shining example, or should I say beacon, set by a country like Ireland, who turned their country around in ten years and made it the most prosperous nation in Europe

Eire is mainly a clear and shining example of the power of Keynsian economics, as the EU pumped an awful lot of money into that country.

That things are usually

[HW_Hack]

Not as bad or dire as we percieve them to be ( Bush could be an exception to this rule). And that this old Earth is still a pretty tough old bitch. - So hoping the world & the US (with Dems in control) make some progress on Global Warming.' - Hopeful the Earth can tough-it-out as we slowly reduce greenhouse emmisions - Hopeful that people are starting to believe that the small choices they make everyday can reduce greenhouse emmisions - Hopeful tha stem cell research will be allowed to progress ( I have a blood based cancer) Absent from my Hopeful list based on the realities of Human Nature: Peace any where in the Middle East, nuclear arms control, ethics reform in politics, accountability in the White House

Re:That things are usually

[cbacba]

The good news is that man's technology at worst is a tertiary effect in global warming while primary effects are not well understood and there are probably quite a number of even undiscovered secondary effects. It's only just come out that bovine flatulence contributes more gh gases than does man's transportation system. Of course man and bovine are far more insignificant in the arena of biomasses than are bacteria, insects, even termites. What that means is that instantly totally eradicating cattle and man from the face of the earth is not going to change the fact that the earth will get warmer and cooler in exactly the same fashion as it would have if man never existed. If man actually has an effect on the planet, it will be more to delay (or speed up) such climatactic events by minutes or days rather than delaying or speeding them up by years.

Of course, eventually, the earth will be totally evaporated by the sun as it heats up in the future. Hopefully, it won't produce any of thosse solar flares as observed elsewhere in the galaxy - like the one that was aboutg 100 million times the typical size of what we experience. Global warming or cooling becomes a moot point almost instantly in that circumstance - sorta like an asteroid the size of mars crashing into the earth at a 130,000 feet per second (like what appears to have happened around 3.5 to 4.5 billion years ago when the moon was formed out of some of the debris).

Here's hoping the resources and technology are available to detect and deflect the next asteroid bigger than a football stadium with enough time (years) for the deflection effort to work.

The good news is that adult stem cell research seems to be producing results. The bad news is that apparently the only thing embryonic stems cells offer is to create more cancers.

The promise of the digital world

[Workaphobia]

What am I optimistic about? The very first thing that comes to my mind is the promise of the truly integrated and efficient digital world. The place where everything everywhere is interconnected, where communication, data-sharing, queries, and analysis are all relatively easy problems. Where systems are routinely made - to a mathematical certainty - perfectly secure and reliable, and any examples to the contrary are the rare exception and handled with excellent competency.

Information will be easy to digest, and even easier to share. New and dynamic interactions between totally separate realms will occur regularly. Licensing and intellectual property law will become simplified to the point that they do not encroach upon our ability to use content in new and creative ways. Likewise, combinatorial patents will no longer exist.

The law will understand technology the way it should be understood, and mere technicalities will be eliminated. The potential of the system, and indeed society, will not be impeded by arbitrary restrictions.

In short, I believe in easy access to and consumption of almost all useful information that society documents or creates, and the rapid addition of new information to this wealth of knowledge.

Unfortunately, I do not necessarily believe that our generation will live to see this.

January 20, 2009

[britneys 9th husband]

January 20, 2009

Nothing.

[xmundt]

Depression makes it impossible to be optimistic about anything. The best I can do is hope that it wont get worse

Re:I'm Optimistic the Edge will spell check in '07

[tehcyder]

I forget who it was that once said: "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."

Google says it was James Branch Cabell.

music

[bandmassa]

There is eff-all I'm optimistic about, but realising the petrol is going to run out, and that there won't be a bridge technology of sufficient capacity found in time to prevent the inevitable social collapse, couple with a love of rockabilly, I'm optomistic that after 30 years of playing guitar and electric bass, I'll be able to learn upright bass (bass fiddle) really quickly.

I'm always optomistic about music.